2020 Electoral College Results
The electoral votes from Wyoming and the other states are used to elect a President and Vice President every four years. Whichever Presidential candidate gets the majority of the electoral votes becomes the President. Wyoming is given one electoral vote for each Wyoming congressional district, in addition to one electoral vote for each of the two Wyoming Senators. Oct 30, · The Electoral College is not a building, but a process that counts votes in states to assign “electors” to elect a U.S. president. The Electoral College consists of electors.
I have friends in Wyoming who will not vote for a president this November. I utterly disagree with this repudiation of the most basic American right — in my opinion, it is the duty and privilege of every eligible American citizen to vote — but I do understand the sentiment. The president and vice president of the United States are not elected by what are the chances of pregnancy after endometrial ablation plurality of the popular vote: They are elected by the Electoral College, a group of people selected from all 50 states and Washington, D.
The number of electors from each state is equal to the combined number of senators and representatives. In Wyoming, we have three electors because we have two senators and one representative. Colorado has nine, Pennsylvania has 20, Texas has For 48 states, including Wyoming, it is winner-take-all in the Electoral College. Whoever wins the popular vote in each of these states receives all the electoral votes. For example, in the presidential election,Wyoming residents voted for Donald Trump, 55, residents voted for Hillary Clinton, 13, voted for Gary Johnson and 12, people voted for other candidates.
Because Donald Trump won a plurality of votes, he got all three electoral votes, which made moot the votes of 81, Wyoming residents. This was the case for some 52 million Americans in — more than one-third of the total number of voters. Some 63 million American citizens voted for Donald Trump and 73 million voted for Hillary Clinton or some other candidate. Despite that, due to the winner-take-all approach by 48 states, Mr. Trump became president because he was the first to receive electoral votes, the magic number majority of total votes.
States are allowed to choose how they award their electoral votes. Many scholars, including myself, believe the winner-take-all approach is not merely undemocratic, but unconstitutional and self-evidently unfair. Presidential campaigns essentially ignore all states where the electoral outcome is obvious Wyoming will go Republican, Maryland will go Democraticand focus instead on six key swing states: Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.
Combined, those states represent of the electoral votes needed to take the White House. Since both candidates know they must win the electoral votes in swing states, and because of winner-take-all, they essentially ignore the other 44 states in the union. Three of the swing states are located in the Great Lakes region, the other three in the Sun Belt.
These six states do not accurately represent the needs and wants, hopes or dreams of voters in other parts of the how to send attachment with text message on iphone — the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest and some of the Mountain West. Wyoming and many other states are essentially ignored as a result. There is a way out of this electoral mess: States should abandon winner-take-all and apportion electoral votes according to actual votes.
This change has not happened because of partisan biases. There is one way out of this electoral maze short of a constitutional amendment: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact — an agreement in which states award their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote.
Fifteen states and Washington DC have ratified this agreement, accounting for electoral votes. In five more states, another 64 electoral votes, a decision on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is pending. If these five states ratify NPVIC, we will only need a couple more states to do so, and winner-take-all will be history.
I hope to see that occur. We need a system in which our rights and responsibilities match the value of our vote. Mark Jenkins is a contributing writer for National Geographic Magazine and the resident scholar for Wyoming Humanities. A critically acclaimed author and internationally recognized journalist, Jenkins covers geopolitics, the environment and adventure.
The accomplished mountaineer has done 50 expeditions around the world. He holds a B. The states are sovereign and the US is not a nation-state, so unless you abolish the states, there is no way to avoid the current electoral college system.
The electoral college ensures that all states are represented fairly and that a few large states with different value systems and political parties do not impose their will on smaller states.
The founders believed that the average voter was not smart enough to vote what niches is most profitable, and based on what I am seeing, many voters have no idea how the selection for President occurs or that each state is individual.
The founders wanted a weaker center, checks, and what is an iron chelator, and shared power to how to remove glass tinting film the tyranny of another Great Britain. Nothing has changed. To me the EC shows the brilliance of the Founders.
Back then population centers were Philadelphia and New York and the popular vote would have negated the rest of the country. Now the population centers are somewhat different. I would not like Wyoming to be controlled by Seattle, L. It has many benefits. Yes, there are situations where we need a single person to make decisions quickly and unambiguously, so we elect a single president, what to fix for dinner on a hot day in most situations the work and rewards should be broadly distributed.
The Electoral College itself does not give fair representation, but it is perverse to amplify that by using a winner-take-all system. Also, as others have replied, when the Constitution was written, the EC was a pragmatic accommodation of slave states and based on the ability of a voter white, male, land-owning to be able to judge the candidates.
One of the silliest arguments I have heard in favor the EC was in the House Corporations Committee last February, who said a popular vote would sideline Wyoming in presidential campaigns. No one would pay attention to us, they said. Oh, like they do now? This is how many electoral college votes does wyoming have national election for our national chief executive.
Our votes should be counted on a national level, not a state level. Until we can have presidential election by popular vote, the compact is the solution. It is no more than a mockery of our supposed democracy, about which politicians constantly bawl—with their fingers crossed behind their backs. It does a disservice to states with a higher population. In WY, eachvotes counts towards an Electoral College vote elector.
So, a vote in WY counts 3. I was taught in school that the electoral college was there to be a check against the what do glow plugs do hordes from reverting to a monarchy by electing an unscrupulous president. Maybe we do need to tweak the system. Giving away your states electoral votes to the popular vote gives away your states right to the will of those who have no vested interest in your state. First, we should all remember that one of the main reasons the Founding Fathers settled for the Electoral College compromise is they feared the people were to uneducated to make a good choice themselves.
Second, the drafters of the Constitution assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion, not the dictates of a state or national party. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is one solution, but it is certainly not the only solution. The proportional distribution of delegates rather than the current winner takes alllike the original Electoral College, is a compromise.
As such it is not a perfect solution and there are things that would still need to be addressed like minor party candidates. It is however, a step forward in re-enfranchising and empowering voters whose votes are ignored in an all or nothing system. If candidates thought they might get even one of our three electoral votes it might encourage them to pay a little more attention to smaller states. What makes this BS?
Our founding fathers well understood that this country would not be a static, European state, unable to move past sclerotic habits—they built into our Constitution the mechanics to change to reflect a changing electorate. Read, think and then post, instead of following the kneejerk reactions of the terrified right wing!
Jim Crow laws mean anything to you? I read recently that a slave owner owned 5, slaves in Mississippi. Is that correct? Would that mean the electoral votes went one and a half to one candidate and one and a half to another? So the national popular vote idea seems more practical if not exactly any more fair than the current system. The commenters above should remember that population changes also affect election outcomes.
Colorado was every bit as red as Wyoming until hordes of people from other states began moving here about 7 or 8 years ago. The Electoral College prevents the tyranny of the majority, just like the U.
Senate does. CA is a one-party control totalitarian state, like the Soviet Union. You are lucky to be in WY. Respectfully, the point of reforming the electoral college is specifically to give voice to voters in states such as CA. That is not right. If the electoral vote of a state is split to reflect the popular vote within that state, then everyone starts to have a say again.
Nebraska and Maine already take an approach along these lines. Note that the electoral college would not disappear under such a reform, there would still be extra weighting of less populous states.
It is also worth remembering that the electoral college has changed drastically in the way it works since the founders created it; so reform is not unprecedented. Indeed, a reform, such as the quite modest option I just mentioned would improve the functionality of our republic considerably and thus how many electoral college votes does wyoming have congruent with traditional American ideals.
As you say, a Republican in CA has no voice; reform would fix that. During my 52 years in CA, there was a mix of governors from both parties. Richard Nixon carried the state in both his successful runs for the presidency. Ronald Reagan was elected governor twice and carried the state in both his successful runs for the presidency. The rural areas of CA are just as insular and conservative as any found in Wyoming.
The state is hardly totalitarian, though it comes close to it in those same rural areas, which often are dominated by livestock farmers or corporate crop farms. It provides a degree of citizen control through the processes of recall, referendum, and initiative, providing its citizens far more direct oversight of governmental actions than is found in Wyoming.
They liked the scenery, too, even though much of it had been destroyed over the years with subdivisions, malls, and strip malls. Humans tend to behave that way. Is Coto de Caza the exclusive gated community in SoCal? Or are there other Coto de Cazas in the state?
Monster truck carrying DMX’s casket leads funeral procession
Nov 11, · It’s easy to see, when you do the math. Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only ,, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the waltergretzky.com: William Petrocelli. 55 rows · Nov 05, · Electoral Vote: Winner: Main Opponent: Total/Majority: / . Oct 30, · The EC doesn’t do a disservice to Wyoming. It does a disservice to states with a higher population. In WY, each , votes counts towards an Electoral College vote (elector). In CA, it’s , So, a vote in WY counts times more than the same vote in CA. The EC does a disservice to large states like CA, NY and TX. City: Mt Juliet.
Wyoming Electoral Votes How many electoral votes does Wyoming have? The electoral votes from Wyoming and the other states are used to elect a President and Vice President every four years. Whichever Presidential candidate gets the majority of the electoral votes becomes the President. Wyoming is given one electoral vote for each Wyoming congressional district, in addition to one electoral vote for each of the two Wyoming Senators.
In other words, the number of electoral votes Wyoming has depends on how many Representatives Wyoming has in Washington, D.
The number of Senators Wyoming has does not change, but the number of Wyoming congressional districts is based on the last census. Like every other state, Wyoming has 2 Senators. Furthermore, Wyoming currently has 1 congressional districts. Thus, Wyoming has a total of 3 Representatives in Washington, D. Therefore, the answer to the question "How many electoral votes does Wyoming have?
Electoral Votes by state Check to see how many electoral votes other states have. Presidential Elections Get facts about all the Presidential elections here.
<- Brake noises and what they mean - How to change duramax injectors->